Impossibility of a possibility, why?

How and why does a possibility appear impossible, if another argument outside of that impossibility exists via logic and reason?

We are possibilities of objective reality of which at one point was nothing, is this not obvious?

Value of an individual is objective by reality deeming it possible and existing, of which consciousness grants the ability to deem oneself valuable or not and also determined from other individuals subjective viewpoints stemming from ignorance or an understanding of knowing.

The fastest sperm wins the race, which shows we’re all born winners, the point of life is to show the world you’re winning and being happy of it with causing the least amount of harm.

Understanding is a staircase to be climbed and climbing, endurance of pain and laughing in the face of the dark unknown. Make light out of darkness by understanding it.

If ideas come from the subconscious and the subconscious is since the beginning and will be until the end if there is one, with no discretion of time, is an idea in ones mind, not a verifiable possibility? Thus, imagination could be reality if executed from points/levels of understanding?

The reason a possibility appears as an impossibility is dependent on ones knowledge or current understanding or lack of, of which there is always more to understand. If a possibility appears as an impossibility it is due to a limitation/illusion of the mind trying to find a quicker more satisfactory way, of which satisfaction is illusory due to it’s always being temporary and leading back to pain/fear. So it is the acceptance of comfortable ignorance or a quicker less stressful method of execution of which may be a different idea but may not end up being satisfactory from the beginning which it doesn’t in the end anyways.

Take for example, man traveling faster than the speed of light to get to other planets, instead of mankind attempting to figure this out or beginning the process of fully understanding it, since there is not a hint of it observable in ones individual life time, the mind is tricked into deeming it impossible so one focuses on another method of travel which takes a longer amount of time to achieve the same result but through an observable and less stressful method, what if we switch the variables though. What if instead of traveling a lengthier amount of time to these planets, we put in the effort/time to traveling at light speed and then we may get there in the same amount of time and also get to keep the understanding of how to travel at such speed, which would open a vast amount of other possibilities.

Quality and patience over less work and no patience.

Man mistakenly deems possibilities as impossibilities due to the step after the next step, in the staircase of understanding, not being observable yet, so man creates an illusory satisfaction of less work(which one receives less quality due to such) out of an illusion of what doesn’t appear yet to him.

Travel the path of least resistance and you die faster without ever truly understanding life. Travel the path of struggle and work and you live with an understanding but you still die, to recycle into new form and experience a fruit from the past labor of mankind.

Mankind can revert back to nothing or choose to travel the staircase of his own shadow. Don’t hide from your shadow, children, dance in it.

Edited.

Artimas, I loved your analogy about us working to travel at light speed (or faster) taking potentially the same amount of time, but doing it this way, we get extra at the same amount of time.

What I’d say about this idea generally however, is that we don’t live in a yin yang reality when it comes to proofs. There is not an anti proof for any or every proof.

Our imagination is irrelevant here.

It’s not now, that’s just how it began. Dark and light. Now it has grown more complex.

The anti proof is ignorance, misinformation… the misunderstanding or misinterpretations. There is wisdom and ignorance, they are steps and contrasts to each other, one side goes down and the other goes up, but within them they are complex.

Every thing has a negative and a positive, even oxygen. Oxygen gives us life but also death. Water quenches thirst but may also drown us. There is a risk to every benefit.

Our imagination is how new interpretations or ideas come to us. Everything is possible, we are the ones who make it seem more complex than it is due to the burying of truth. We make it seem like things aren’t possible due to value attribution ultimately. There is a one truth and many things not true, misinterpretations.

The whole duality premise is only from the beginning, it evolved into more than a duality and now here we are. It’s just a representation how everything came from nothing, light coming from dark, with many shades of grey in between, which is within our existing and viewing reality.

It went from being like a square to a tesseract, if that makes sense.

Artimas,

sigh

There no anti proof.

When someone makes a real proof through contradiction, existence is, nor ever has been, yin yang.

A proof has no equal proof against it.

There are things people believe that aren’t true or proof, what is that then if proof is without a lack of proof as well?

Everything came from nothing, seems like a pretty yin yang aspect to me. There’s two things, nothing and something, what is out of that something doesn’t matter. It’s still something.

Yeah, reality is what it is, it’s proof and just is. It exists as it is, it evolved and is still evolving. It isn’t yin and yang now, not anymore but something still came out of nothing, which light and dark are just imagery to show such.

Nothing: by definition: never was, never is and never will be. All we are is the opposite of isn’t. Nothing is defined as: isn’t — this is what the opposite of isn’t is.

There has to be contrast in order to have things functioning. Otherwise it would truly be hell or not able to exist orderly. Chaos and order.

Contrast, yes, not however, the polar opposites of absolute nothing and existence.

Polar opposites only exist in proofs through contradiction. Everything else is simply “otherness” or contrast, as you state.

Well I agree with it being contrast, it does make more sense that for something to evolve through something else, that it wouldn’t be an opposite, merely a contrast or other state.

Note the Law of Non-Contradiction within logic,

Your OP is a contradiction, i.e. an Impossibility [not-p] cannot be a possibility [p]. As such your OP is moot and a non-starter.

Your term ‘what appear to be impossible’ is merely psychological and subjective.

The proper way to the above is to approach it via perspective or sense.

Empirical Perspective
Within the empirical perspective everything is empirically possible regardless of how one may think it is impossible [subjectively].
Therefore if all the terms one used in a hypothesis are empirically-based, then it is empirically possible.
The question remain is to bring the empirical evidence to verify and confirm its possibility.

For example, if someone claim there are dogs in planet Saturn, we have to accept this is empirically possible even though it is very unlikely. The variable ‘dogs’ and ‘planet Saturn’ are empirical proven empirical terms, therefore we have to accept the possibility of the proposition.
To confirm the empirical possibility, then one will have to show [verified appropriately] there are dogs on Planet Saturn.

If you claim God is that bearded man in the sky, I will accept it is empirically possible, but it is a 0.00000000 …01% empirical possibility. If any one insist it is true then bring the empirical evidence for justifications.
Note Richard Dawkins being scientific and empirical based has to accept the possibility of God [his definition] is 1/7 but he personally think it is Zero possibility.

The Rational and Logical Perspective
The other perspective is the logical possibility. To prove whatever is logically possible, then one will have to prove it within the logical Framework and rules.
What is proven to be logically possible is not confirmed to be empirically possible unless all the variable are empirical.
Note Hume’s ‘no is [empirical] from ought [logic and reason]’. You need to understand this principle if you are not familiar with it.

The point with the conventional meaning of the ultimate God is that God is not even logically possible, thus it would be worst to claim it is an empirical possibility.

My points;

1. Your OP is flawed, moot and a non-starter.
2. God is not even a logical possibility, it is an illusion, thus an impossibility to be real.
3. God is only a psychological crutch.

… that’s the point of the thread, showing how impossibilities don’t exist. Anything within the laws are possible and nothing is truly “imagination” unless delusional and thoughts are extremely exaggerated, it appears as imagination due to the confinement of the present moment.

You Prove my point of how value attribution functions.

The perception of god is flawed, not what god is.

God is psychological but not a crutch, it’s knowledge and unconscious/subconscious.

It’s like someone trying to prove blue doesn’t or does exist to someone who can only see blue and calls blue, red.

You’re still going on about the conventional meaning, you do realize by now I don’t go by the conventional meaning right? understand this simple fact. I have defined what it is and you refuse to see or admit it, even when science proves it.

You’re stuck on a misinterpretation of what god is. It’s not meant to be taken LITERAL.

I already have proven it in and by the rules. You are focusing on your own definition of god “conventional god” instead of my thread. Where it literally states in the headline, defining god. Then you state to make a new thread when that thread is perfectly fine for defining it, which I did. And gave many examples of how it functions in reality.

In a philosophical forum like this, you just cannot change the meaning of a term especially like ‘God’.
There is a core and range of meaning of God that is acceptable within the common, conventional, intellectually and philosophical that has a significant impact on humanity. In this case, I am using the term ‘God’ in the philosophical sense [not conventional as you insist] as discussed by the most notable philosophers.

Your view that ‘subconsciousness’ or ‘energy’ is God is ineffective and useless in relation to the generally accepted definition of God.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

‘Consciousness’ and ‘energy’ are well defined and explained scientific terms.
There is no need for you to put a new spin and corrupt them with a connection to God.

Corrupt them? You and the “notable” philosophers are the ones who have corrupted the very meaning of god by a literal style only view. If anything, I am using logic and reason to give proper explanation of what the word means and how the Bible is supposed to be viewed in this now modern time compared to their ancient civilizations. No, you aren’t sticking to a philosophical type of defined god because philosophy is the love of wisdom and an open mind, which you’re not open minded, you have proven that by stating my defining god when I am equipped to, is a corruption. Yeah the truth does seem like a corruption, to a lie or illusion. It isn’t my fault you have followed a misinterpretation of religion and the terminology. God isn’t meant to be looked at as a literal figure. It has no face and it communicates via subconsciousness to consciousness of which we also derived out of the same subconscious that we speak to… yeah, seems pretty external to me.

I understand how energy, change and psyche works, which have proven you wrong, so I don’t know why you keep resorting to science when it is the very tool of the god you’re trying to disprove, while focusing on a misinterpretation of it, you disprove nothing because the idea you fight against doesn’t exist, it’s an illusion, misinterpreted, misunderstood. So own up to it and try to look at it in a new light or you will continue on the cycle, never proving anything new about it due to it’s not even existing due to a misunderstanding of the Bible.

It’s like me saying the sun is now named something new and I misunderstand what the sun is, while I try to disprove the sun, while not even understanding what it is I am trying to disprove fully. It’s foolish and I will call it out.

I live in the now, I have information that those notable philosophers didn’t, maybe they shouldn’t have fell into the trap of attempting disproving misconception. Know how I got out of the trap? By watching others fall into it and focusing on understanding myself completely.

“Accepting” something that is a misunderstanding is against the very cause or purpose of philosophy, the “core” definition of accepted design of what god is supposed to be according to “notable” philosophers is wrong and has been focused upon for a long time, it’s a trap of thinking.

If you want to prove the light exists, you don’t go outside with sunglasses on. It’s really that simple, the definition that is accepted is wrong and based off of a misunderstanding of the text and semantics itself.

There are no rules for defining god, you try and create the rules, stating I can’t redefine it with logic and reason because you don’t want to accept the fact that it’s the truth. I’m not telling you to follow rules. Im telling you to open your mind and expand your perspective instead of relying on the literal, concrete/ objective style only of which science has taught.

you tell me to follow rules in philosophy outside of logical ones regarding fallacies and then expect me to admit you’re right, when you aren’t. That sounds tyrannical to be honest and ego driven.

Do you think I am lying to you when I tell you that the current understanding of the word “god” is based off a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of religious/mythological texts and context? The fact that you can’t even view that as a possibility is against the very foundation of what philosophy truly is.

If you have stated your definition of God has nothing to do with the common, conventional and philosophical definition, e.g. like below,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
I would not have bothered to respond to your posts.

Note the above definition of God and as believed by theists and noted by others has a great impact within the history of humanity. So the listed definition above is the default meaning of ‘God’.

Your personal definition of God is too subjective and restricted to your very personal subjective opinions.
This is no different from the personal subjective opinion of a schizo who claimed the gnomes in the garden are real living things because they had a real discussion with him.

In addition you are messing with logic by claiming contradictions are possible.

I am out of this discussion.

Yeah and humanities history has been lead off of a false conception of what they originally wrote, which is the down fall of mankind. So congratulations in supporting that “conventional” definition. You can link wiki all you want but I am a philosopher, not an imitator. God is subjective, why do you think there has been so many in history, that’s obvious, which I have also explained in terms of psychology.

I’m not messing with logic, you’re trying to disprove something that was never logical to begin with. I have a logical and reasonable definition and meaning of god and what some of the major terminology of the Bible meant.

You don’t get to dictate what all theists believe or follow. The average man doesn’t delve deep into psychology and philosophy, so your point is moot.
The default meaning isn’t meant to be looked at literally. Which is your own issue. Psychology is observable, I suggest you go study it and not state/claim you know it just because you think you understand the human condition. It’s deeper than “human condition”.

The definition and explanation I have given for god is enough to logically assert it as something supreme.